Re: numeric/decimal docs bug? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Lincoln Yeoh
Subject Re: numeric/decimal docs bug?
Date
Msg-id 5.1.0.14.1.20020305105936.0260ddd0@192.228.128.13
Whole thread Raw
In response to numeric/decimal docs bug?  (Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
Are there other cases where the pgsql docs may say unlimited where it might 
not be?

I remember when the FAQ stated unlimited columns per table (it's been 
corrected now so that's good).

Not asking for every limit to be documented but while documentation is 
written if one does not yet know (or remember) the actual (or even 
rough/estimated) limit it's better to skip it for later than to falsely say 
"unlimited". Better to have no signal than noise in this case.

Regards,
Link.

At 11:14 PM 02-03-2002 +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>In datatype.sgml:
>
>      The type numeric can store numbers of practically
>      unlimited size and precision,...
>
>I think this is simply wrong since the current implementation of
>numeric and decimal data types limit the precision up to 1000.
>
>#define NUMERIC_MAX_PRECISION           1000
>
>Comments?




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Christopher Kings-Lynne"
Date:
Subject: Re: [SQL] Uniqueness of rule, constraint, and trigger names
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: timestamp_part() bug?